Right to Information in Orissa

Symposium on ‘Right to Information in Orissa’,

held under the aegis of Prajtantra Pathachakra at Cuttack on 30^th Sept. 2006

Prajatantra Pathachakra is an old, well-known forum, based at Cuttack in the premises of Oriya daily Prajatantra and holds a monthly symposium for debating and discussing on any current topic of national and State-level significance. Conventionally it is held on the last day of every month. Knowledgeable persons from different walks of life are invited to talk and share with the audiences their opinions and views on the topic. Founded by Dr.Harekrushna Mahatab, former Chief Minister of Orissa and Governor Bombay, the forum has since remained alive and active in its mission, even years after the demise of its founder. The Forum is now managed under the guidance of its Convener Sri Bhatruhari Mahatab who is the successor to Dr.Mahatab and presently a Member of Parliament, and is actively assisted in this respect by Sri Pravat Tripathy ex-MLA Banki, Sri Bisweswar Dey a well-known journalist and Sri Pitambar Jena, the Coordinator of the forum.

The Symposium for the month of September 06 was held on the 30^th instant at 7 PM in the auditorium of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti at Bihari Bag, Cuttack and continued upto 9.30 PM. The speakers on the dais were Justice Sri Devendra Mohan Patnaik, Orissa Lokpal Sri Sarat Chandra Mohapatra, Member-Secretary of CYSD Sri Jagadanand and social activist Sri Chitta Behera. It was attended by persons from cross-sections of society including journalists, social workers and retired bureaucrats. The proceeding of the discussion was initiated by convener Sri Bhatruhari Mahatab, who informed the participants about the unique significance of RTI Act 2005, a brief history of its evolution in India and the imperative need for its proper implementation in the State of Orissa.

Then Sri Jagadanand, Member-Secretary CYSD (Centre for Youth and Social Development) Bhubaneswar deliberated on the topic and in course of his talk highlighted the impact of the fortnight-long awareness and sensitization programme on RTI held in Orissa as a part of the nation-wide anti-bribery campaign conducted in July last. He opined that if more and more people use it, then and then only it would take root in our State.

Talk by Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Campaign for Right to Information

Sri Jagadanand was followed by Sri Chitta Behera, Advisor to Orissa Campaign for Right to Information, who first of all expressed his gratitude to Prajatantra Pathachakra for choosing a very timely and relevant theme for the current month’s symposium. Then he told that the focus of his talk would be to enquire into the reasons as to why the RTI Act has still not impacted tangibly the common people in Orissa, unlike it has made strident progress at Central level and in other States of the country.

The Rules can’t override the letter and spirit of Act

The main reason for RTI’s discomfiture in Orissa is the Orissa RTI Rules 2005, which is absurd and ultra vires the parent law, Sri Behera said. First of all, he sought to dispel a wrong impression that might have transpired following Sri Mahatab’s unwitting remark made in course of his opening talk that the RTI Act had given ‘freedom’ to every State to frame the Rules in the manner they liked. As a matter of fact, the Sections 27 and 28 of the Act have set the criteria and parameters, which every appropriate Government, be it the Central Government or State Government of Orissa should abide by while framing their respective Rules. For instance, if the Act has mentioned only 4 kinds of fees that can be prescribed by a Government, the latter can’t prescribe the 5^th fee, though it has always the spacious liberty of prescribing 3 fees in stead of 4. Unlike the truly federal system as prevalent in USA where a particular State can legislate an Act independently and irrespective of the provisions of a corresponding federal Act, India’s polity is quasi-federal where a State can’t frame a law independently, and contrary to the letter and spirit of a Central law on the same subject. Moreover, the issue in question is not that of framing a law, but of framing the Rules under a Central law, enacted under the residual power of the Centre. Thus, speaking in the concrete context of RTI Act and Orissa Rules, the Government of Orissa like the Centre or any other State doesn’t have the ‘freedom’, but mandate to frame Rules as per the norms laid down by the Act itself.

Application Procedure under Orissa RTI Rules flawed

Referring to Sri Jagadanand’s remark that so many persons could get their desired information using RTI during the fortnight-long campaign in last July, Sri Behera observed, the said success stories could happen because those were guided events. There were always a group of activists standby to back every applicant, and the concerned officials came to know that if they didn’t disclose outright the information sought for, they would be facing a lot of hassles at the hands of the activists. And moreover, in all these cases the information seekers belonged to the very place where the concerned office was situated and they simply had to walk in physically to demand information in return of their application under Section 6(1). But as everybody knows, the RTI Act as such empowers a citizen to ask for information from any corner of the country; so to say the information is required to flow from anywhere to anywhere in India. And this vision behind the RTI Act could materialize, only if and when the postal service is profusely used for submission of application and appeals along with the required fees and for transmission of information by the public authorities to the applicant-citizens. We should therefore examine, whether the Orissa RTI Rules help or hinder such easy flow of information as required under RTI Act? To clarify the point, Sri Behera asked, “Is there any single instance throughout the State where a person sitting in his home has received the information by post?” Perhaps none till yet, though the Act is already 1year plus 3 and half months old. And it won’t happen either in future no matter how many years shall pass by. The root of the malaise lies in the very lackadaisical and absurd nature of the Orissa RTI Rules 2005, the mainframe of which has not undergone any change even after the notification of Amendment of 29^th October 2006. To elucidate his point, Sri Behera first cited the Form-A in which one has to apply for information paying the application fee of Rs.10/-. But the question arises, how to remit the application fee? As per the Rule-4(1) and the Schedule of Costs and Fees under Orissa RTI Rules, the mode of payment of application fee is either by cash or by treasury challan. If a person from Delhi, for instance, want to apply for information to an office under the State of Orissa, can he remit his/her application fee at all? The remittance by treasury challan is not possible at all, since there is no treasury office of Government of Orissa in Delhi. Then to avail the other alternative, i.e. payment by cash, he/she has to travel all the way from Delhi to Orissa just to deposit the application fee of Rs.10/- only. Is it not an absurd provision made under Orissa Rules? Even within the State, is the provision of treasury challan a feasible one? As is well-known, the treasury offices are located only in a few cities and towns across the State, and available at the worst at sub-divisional level only, not below that. Is it not cumbersome on the part of a person from Jambu, say for instance, to travel all the distance of 40 km from his home village to Kendrapara district headquarters just to remit an application fee of Rs.10/- by way of treasury challan? Thus vast bulk of our people who are otherwise hard pressed in terms of time and money shall be automatically deprived of their right to apply under RTI Act to any office of the State Government.

Single Mode of Payment, a disabling provision

The next question arises, if a person staying far off applies by post for a piece of information to an office, shall he/she be able to avail it at all? As is well-known, as per the Orissa RTI Rules 2005, the PIO is to inform the applicant in Form-B the total amount of fees to be paid to him towards the cost of information in 15 days of the receipt of the notice and that too by cash only. By the way, it is worth mentioning that contrary to the provision made under Section 7(3) for the PIO to intimate the detail break-up of the fees to be paid along with the particulars of appellate authority before whom an appeal can be made against the fees so charged or the form of access so allowed, the Form-B under Orissa Rules provides no space for such intimation, except only the total amount to be paid. And as a result, the applicant shall not only get nonplussed regarding the amount to be paid, but also feel helpless as regards where to go in appeal against the allegedly unjust and ambiguous order for payment and access to information. But incorrigible hardship still awaits the applicant. How shall an applicant willing to pay the amount charged from him/her, but staying far off from the concerned office remit the charged amount to the PIO? Under the Orissa Rules, the only permitted mode of payment of cost of information is through cash, unlike under the Central Rules that allows two other modes of payment such as Cheque/Draft and Indian Postal Order besides cash. So the applicant in question is bound to physically visit the concerned office just to pay the charged amount, even if he is to cover a great distance. Thus there is little chance for the people who are located far away from an office to be able to pay the cost of information and consequently they shall be deprived of access to any information.

Lodging a Complaint/Appeal- also DIFFICULT under Orissa Rules

The RTI Act in its Sections 27 and 28 has clearly stipulated 4 kinds of fees, that may be prescribed by an appropriate Government, such as fee for suo moto information under Section 4(4), application fee under Section 6(1), fee for cost of information under Section 7(1) and fee for electronic medium under Section 7(5). As such the Act provides no space for any Government to impose fees for making appeals. But the Orissa Rules contravening the said mandate had provided for Rs.40/- and Rs.50/-, now reduced to Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- as fees for 1^st and 2^nd appeals respectively under Section 19. Again, as regards the mode of payment for appeal fee under Section 19, the Orissa Rules has made a single provision, i.e. by affixing a court fee stamp of Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- for 1^st and 2^nd appeals respectively. As is well-known, the court fee stamps are available only in places where courts are functioning. A person has to first collect the court fee stamps in order to be able to send an appeal to the Departmental appellate authority or to State Information Commission. Moreover, neither the Central Act nor the Central Rules has mandated a written form for making the appeals under Section 19, whereas Orissa Rules has prescribed two Forms ( Form-D and Form-E) to be filled up compulsorily by any aggrieved person intending to make the appeal.

On account of these absurd provisions, which have no rhyme nor reason vis-à-vis the RTI Act, the Orissa Rules is unworkable and shall remain so no matter how many years shall pass by.

Anti-people orientation of Orissa RTI Rules

The Orissa Rules is also thoroughly anti-people in its orientation. As is well-known, the RTI Act nowhere talks of penalizing an applicant or appellant citizen for any act of omission or commission on his/her part and rather provides for compensation to be paid by a public authority for any loss or detriment suffered by the applicant [Section 19(8b)], penalty against the PIO for dereliction of duty in providing information [Section 20], and burden of proof to lie on the concerned PIO in any appeal proceeding. Ironically, the Orissa RTI Rules has adopted a diametrically opposite stance vis-à-vis RTI Act by way of prescribing sternest ever burdens and penalties against the applicant-citizen, which even put to shame the draconian regime under the East India Company in the long past colonial era. For instance, the Rule-10 says that if there be any damage caused while the PIO collects the sample of a material structure in response to an applicant’s request for information in the form of a sample, then the applicant has to compensate the said damage. Further, the Rule 12 says that an appellant shall have to pay the costs involved in production of evidence and witness that may be required in an appeal proceeding. And the most bizarre of all is the Rule 13, which says that if an applicant fails to pay up the dues against him/her on any account within 30 days of the notice served to that effect, it shall be recovered from the applicant ‘as arrears of land revenue’. As is well-known, the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act 1962 defines ‘arrears of land revenue’ as a public demand (vide Schedule 1) which can be recovered by the concerned Certification Officer by way of attachment and sale of property including immovable property of the defaulter and arresting and detaining him in civil prison (vide Section 15 of Act of 1962). And if the amount of arrears exceeds Rs.250/-, he/she shall suffer the imprisonment for a period of six months and in case of a lesser amount, for a period of six weeks (vide Section 39 of the Act of 1962). Thus the Orissa RTI Rules-2005 has been framed in such a manner as to push a common, innocent citizen behind the bars for the simple reason that he once applied for information to a public office in Orissa under RTI Act 2005. Under the circumstances, can an average citizen who is neck-deep in hassles around his bread and butter ever dare to exercise his/her right to information before any public authority under State Government of Orissa, braving the insuperable odds and disasters in wait for him thanks to Orissa RTI Rules?

WHY Orissa RTI Rules ARE ultra vires the parent law?

The Orissa RTI Rules-2005 is patently ultra vires the parent law too. Firstly, the Section 7(5) of the Act exempts the BPL families from 3 out of 4 kinds of fees chargeable under the Act. As such a BPL applicant is required to pay only one fee i.e. the cost of suo motu information under Section 4(4) of the Act. But Rule 4(1) under Orissa RTI Rules exempts only application fee under Section 6(1) and thereby compels a BPL person to pay other two kinds of fees, such as fee for cost of information under Section 7(1) and fee for electronic medium, which should have otherwise been exempted.

Secondly, the Section 6(2) says, “an applicant . . . shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him”. But the Form-A (a lengthy application form bearing 11 columns) compels an applicant to disclose at Column-2 ‘the name of father/spouse’, at Column-3 ‘the permanent address’ and at Column-4 ‘the Particulars in respect of identity of the applicant’, which are nothing but ‘personal details’ out and out. Though the Act has not asked for production of any proof of identity of the applicant, the Rule-2 (1e) of Orissa Rules defines ‘identity’ as an ‘evidence to show the citizenship like an electoral photo identity card, a passport or any other document which can satisfy the authority about the citizenship of the person’. The question arises- when hundreds and thousands of young persons who are below 18 years of age and are therefore not voters yet, and most of whom might not be having a passport, what document shall they produce in proof of their citizenship? Are they not citizens of India and thereby entitled to right to information under Section 3 of the Act? Thus the framers of the Rules seem to be unaware of the citizenship law of the country too. In a flagrant violation of letter and spirit of the Act, the tune of ‘identity’ has been played time and again throughout the Orissa Rules. The Rule 4(2) mandates the PIO to be ‘satisfied with the identity of the applicant’ before issuing the intimation for payment in Form-B. Again, the PIO while intimating the applicant about the rejection of the application in Form C may take the plea ‘Your identity is not satisfactory’ (vide Column-C). It is simply mind-boggling to know why the Government of Orissa is so scared about the ‘identity’ and ‘citizenship’ of the applicant while neither Central Government nor any other State Government have taken recourse to such kind of subterfuge just to deny information to the public.

Thirdly, the RTI Act under Section 7(1) categorically says that a PIO may ‘reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9’. As is well-known, the Section 8(1) lists out 10 grounds from (a) to (j), one or more of which should be cited as the reasons for rejection of an application. And the PIO may also cite Section 9 that deals with protection of copyright of private parties as the reason for rejection of an application. But the Form C under Orissa Rules, which has as many as 9 Columns has given an arbitrary handle to the PIO to reject an application citing as many as 8 additional grounds besides the aforesaid ground of Sections 8 and 9 mentioned at Column-1. Even such silly grounds as ‘Your application was not complete in all respects’ (Col-2), ‘Your identity is not satisfactory’ (Col-3), and ‘The information is contained in published material available to public’ (Col-4) etc. are quoted only to justify the rejection of an application. To cap it all, in a blatant defiance of the letter and spirit of RTI Act, the Form-C in its last and ninth Column gives an absolute discretion to the PIO to concoct any reason out of his own to reject an application, since it reads, ‘For any other reason please see overleaf’.

Fourthly, the RTI Act in its Section 7(9) says that the information has to be provided in the very form in which it has been sought by the applicant-citizen. Moreover, the Section 6(1b) says that even an oral request for information by a citizen should be accepted by the PIO, whose duty it is to reduce the same into a written one. But the Orissa Rules has introduced a lengthy 11-column application form as mandatory to be filled up foolproof in every respect by the applicant, failing which the application shall be rejected along with the forfeiture of the application fee. After the Central Information Commission has given their decision in the case of Ms.Madhu Bhaduri versus Director (LM) DDA, Delhi ( No.CIC/C/I/2006 dated 30.1.06), it is now a settled principle that the application form can’t be made mandatory. The said decision inter alia noted, “It (an application form) cannot be treated as a substitute for a simple application as laid down in Section 6(1). Since a standard application cannot be mandated, it is not covered by prescription of Rules but is to be treated simply as an easing of processes. Its absence cannot be grounds for rejection of an application.” Thus the Orissa’s Rule 4(1) which compels a citizen to apply in Form-A, and Column-2 of Form-C stand glaringly exposed as ultra vires the parent law.

Fifthly, it is true that the Section 24(4) of the RTI Act has empowered a State Government to notify certain of their security and intelligence agencies, to which this Act shall not apply, just as 18 nos. of such agencies under the Central Government (vide Second Schedule of the Act) have been declared exempt as per Section 24(1). But the provisos to both Sections 24(1) and 24(4) say that these agencies are however liable to disclosure of ‘information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation’, and such information ‘shall be provided within 45 days from the date of the receipt of request’, subject of course to the approval by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be. But the State Government of Orissa while declaring 5 agencies as exempt from the general purview of the Act (vide Notification No.PC-106/2005-29086/IPR dated 29^th Oct. 2005), have not provided for the mechanism as to how the citizens can apply to these agencies for ‘information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation’. Following the CIC’s decision in the case of Dr.S.K.Agarwal vs. Cabinet Secretariat (Vide Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00039 dated 6.6.06), it is now a settled principle that the security and intelligence agencies of the Central and State Governments which are declared exempt under Section 24 of the Act have a bounden duty to put in place a mechanism including appointment of PIOs and appellate authorities within their respective organizations so as to facilitate the citizens’ access to information pertaining to corruption and human rights violation. Thus the abovesaid notification of the Government of Orissa stands the imperative need for immediate amendment in the light of the proviso to Section 24(4) of the Act.

At this point Sri Behera took exception to an observation made by the earlier speaker Sri Jagadanand that the common people while exercising their RTI needn’t bother about the Defense matters, but should use RTI solely to achieve the various entitlements due to them under different social welfare schemes like NREG Act, BPL Card and Indira Awas Yozana etc. Sri Behera pleaded that whatever money is being spent after Defense is contributed in various ways by the common people, who have therefore a legitimate right to know whether the said money was duly spent or mismanaged in scams like Bofors and Coffins. And as such the three wings of India’s Defense, namely army, navy and air-force are already covered under the RTI Act. Every agency of the State including even the 18 nos. of specialized security and intelligence agencies as mentioned under Second Schedule are not unconditionally exempt from the purview of the Act, and are duty-bound to disclose ‘information pertaining to corruption and human rights violation’ as already discussed above.

On THE CONDUCT OF Orissa Information Commission

As a matter of fact, in the new information regime that has ushered in in the post-RTI era, the position of the Information Commission, be it at Central level or at State level, can be likened to that of a head in the human body. It has the mandate not only to collect and compile the report on implementation of the Act by various public authorities and present the same to the concerned legislature, but also to direct any such authority to make amends as and where necessary to comply with the requirements of the Act. In fact, the Section 25(5) of the RTI Act says, ‘If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under the Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of the Act, it may give to the public authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity”. It was therefore expected that the Orissa Information Commission which started functioning w.e.f. 20^th of November 05 would recommend to the State Government the need for drastically amending those provisions of Orissa RTI Rules which are ultra vires the parent law and rendering the State Rules as citizen-friendly as possible. Various civil society organizations did also put forth their memoranda at different points of time to SIC for bringing about such amendment. This speaker also both in writing and through oral request has tried his level best to press the Commission to exercise their powers under Section 25(5) of the Act for the said purpose. But to this day there is not a single instance visible to the public eye, where the Orissa Information Commission has done anything of the sort.

Rather the State Commission, which like its Central counterpart is supposed to act ‘autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority’[vide Section 15(4) of the Act] has been behaving in a manner subservient to the State Government and derogative of its constitutionally mandated authoritative position. For instance, the Central Information Commission has played its due role as custodian of the new law while it told straightaway the Central Department of Personnel and Training, the GOI’s nodal agency for implementation of RTI Act to ‘remove immediately its clarification on ‘file notings’ from its website’ (vide Appeal No.35/ICPB/2006 dated 23^rd June 2006 in the case of Shri Mahendra Gaur vs. Dept. of Consumer Affairs). But the Orissa Information Commission provides an FAQ on its website, which just like DOPT and Govt. of Orissa defines information to exclude ‘file notings’ from its purview. Should the State Commission do so, even when the great controversy centring round ‘file notings’ has been put at rest after the Central Govt. withdrew its proposed amendment of RTI law to exclude ‘file notings’ as a result of vehement protest by civil society groups from all over the country.

Again, a curious case of naked and mindless plagiarism on the part of the Orissa Information Commission has come to our notice. In the FAQ placed on its website, the word ‘fee’ inter alia has been defined, and it is said that ‘No fees will be charged from people living below the poverty line’ (vide Item No.15: What is the fee?). But the Commission simultaneously displays the Orissa RTI Rules 2005 on its website too, and as is well-known, the Rule 4(1) of Orissa RTI Rules exempts only application fee for the BPL families while charging the other two fees (fee towards cost of information and fee for electronic medium), which should have been exempted too as per the law. The Commission has placed these two widely variant positions on ‘fees for the BPL families’, without giving its clarification on what should be the actual position in the matter. Such a lackadaisical attitude of the Commission not only leads to confusion galore in the public mind, but also to a bad reflection on the Commission’s own image.

Moreover, it is expected that the State Information Commission in order to make transparent the process of its adjudication should disclose on its website the decisions made by them on the complaints and appeals received from the aggrieved citizens. Accordingly the Central Information Commission has already made open such decisions on its website, and those are available on day-to-day basis. To illustrate this point, Sri Behera showed a Volume containing 96 Decisions in the month of June 2006, downloaded from the Commission’s website. Not only that. The CIC has already hosted a link that will show the Cause List of the Complaints and Appeals received and Status of the complaints and appeals so enlisted. But in case of Orissa Information Commission, there is no chance to get to know at all how many appeals/complaints have been received, let alone how many of them disposed of and status of the enlisted ones. Thus the public at large are in complete dark about how their complaints/appeals are handled by the State Information Commission. Moreover, the Information Commissions are also deemed public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h), and are as such required to make proactive disclosure on 17 categories of information covered under Section 4(1b) concerning themselves including how much salary and other allowances each of the Commissioners and staff draw, the division of functions among them, and particulars of PIOs and AAs appointed by them. While the Central Information Commission has made such disclosures duly on its website, the Orissa Information Commission has not even attempted anything of the sort. As a result, the public at large are also in complete dark about the overall activity of the Commission. Besides Sri Behera expressed his deep resentment about the unwarranted publicity given to the family photographs of the Chief State Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner on the website of the Commission. It is simply ludicrous that a public space like the website of Information Commission, in stead of publishing the information as required under law and by the members of the pubic allows itself to be used away after the publicity of personal and family profile of the Commissioners, said Sri Behera with deep concern. He added that he himself had lodged a Complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act by a registered post as far back as 15^th of January 2006 mentioning therein several omissions and commissions of Commission including the complaint on family photograph, but has not received till date even its acknowledgement due.

Under the circumstances, it becomes the bounden duty of the public at large, who are the ultimate source of sovereign authority over each and every public body, to keep vigil over the activity of the Information Commissions and register their complaint as and where necessary under Section 18(1) of the Act about the omissions and commissions of any Information Commission. Thus only can we help such Commissions act as per the mandate of the Act, and not otherwise. And if the State Information Commission be made to perform duly the role assigned to them, there is no earthly reason as to why the RTI shall show a tardy progress in Orissa, as has been the case till date.

After concluding his talk, Sri Behera showed a bilingual book in Oriya and English published under his advisorship with the title ‘Why Orissa RTI Rules-2005 absurd and illegitimate, even after the Amendment of 29^th May 2006?’ and circulated its copies among the speakers on the dais.

- End of the Talk by Chitta Behera -

Then Lokpal Orissa Sri Sarat Chandra Mohapatra took the floor and spoke at length on the unique nature of the RTI Act. He further clarified that the exemption of security and intelligence agencies is only a conditional one; one can apply for information to these agencies, but the latter may refuse to provide the information sought quoting the grounds of exemption allowed to them; then the concerned appellant can of course go in appeal against such refusal. Opining on the controversy around Orissa RTI Rules, Sri Mohapatra broadly concurred with the view of the earlier speaker Sri Chitta Behera that the Rules shouldn’t militate against the letter and spirit of an Act, and therefore the Orissa RTI Rules deserved to be corrected as and where it conflicted with the mandate of the RTI Act 2005. He disclosed that he as Lokpal Orissa saw to it that an appropriate mechanism was in place to facilitate public access to information from his office. Again, those who think that Orissa RTI Rules have not been framed in a proper manner in keeping with the provisions of parent Act, they may use the forum of Lokpal to achieve their objective of amending the said Rules, observed Sri Mohapatra. Finally he appealed to the audiences not to feel harassed by the existing omissions and commissions in the Orissa RTI Rules, which are but a temporary phenomenon, but to go ahead in exercising their rights under the Act to the extent possible in the given scenario of the State.

Justice Sri Devendra Mohan Patnaik in his brief but pithy presidential address summed up the essential contentions underlined by the previous speakers. He hailed the efforts made by Sri Jagadanand and his organization towards operationalisation of RTI Act notwithstanding various limitations and obstacles that might have come on the way. Justice Patnaik admitted that he himself was yet to thoroughly grasp the various nuances of the RTI Act. However, after having heard Sri Behera’s critical analysis on Orissa RTI Rules, he felt, if the said Rules suffered the lacunae already indicated, then it should be overhauled at the earliest and be brought in harmony with the norms and parameters laid down by the parent Act. Justice Patnaik thanked Prajatantra Pathachakra for organizing the symposium on a timely and hotly debated theme ‘RTI in Orissa’ and also the participants for making it a success.

Before the conclusion of symposium a brief question-answer session was held in which Lokpal Sri Mohapatra responded by way of clarification to the various questions raised by some participants.

Finally, a warm vote of thanks was tendered by Sri Pitambar Jena, Coordinator ‘Prajatantra Pathachakra’ who expressed the indebtedness of the forum to both speakers and participants of the symposium who could make their time to attend it in spite of the immense hassles of traffic associated with ongoing Puja festival in Cuttack city.